<p>In 1995 (when college admissions was not nearly as competitive as today), Jennifer Gratz, a white in-state female, couldn't get in to LSA with a GPA of 3.8. </p>
<p>In 2005, me, an Asian out-of-state male, with maximum 3.8 GPA (if I arounded correctly; actually just 3.75), not only got in LSA, but got into Honors. </p>
<p>Therefore, doesn't this show that the standard has really lowered? And I know that Gratz's ACT was 25 and my SAT is 1400. BUT, based on the old 100-point admissions system that was struck down, the difference between an ACT of 25 and SAT of 1400 is only TWO POINTS--- 2 out of 100!!! Hence, given that Gratz was 1.) in-state (automatic 10 point PLUS!!!) and 2.) applying in 1995, I don't think the difference should be that she doesn't get in AT ALL and I get into Honors. UNLESS, the standard has really lowered since the new admissions system's been used.</p>
<p>THUS, DOESN'T THIS PROVE THAT U-M's QUALITY OF ITS STUDENT BODY HAS DETERIORATED SINCE GRATZ V. BOLLINGER in 2003? </p>
<p>PS: And even if it's extracurricular that made the difference, it 1.) Shouldn't have been that significant, especially when determining Honors and 2.) I didn't have much academic-related ECs. SO WHAT MADE SUCH A HUGE DISPARITY???</p>
<p>To sum up, had I applied in 1995 using that 100-point system, I see no conceivable way that I could have gotten in if Gratz didn't. I'm not a legacy nor recruited. Thus, Gratz would have scored at least 8 points higher than me using the old system--- yet she didn't get in. </p>
<p>So, either the new system has given HUGE HUGE disporportionate weight to ECs, test scores, and Essays, or the standard as lowered.</p>
<p>25 ACT and 3.8 aren't very impressive in the first place. Michigan would be huge if it admitted every student with this kind of stats.</p>
<p>And, according to College Board, a 1400 SAT is equivalent to about 32. Huge difference between 32 and 25.</p>
<p>But I still don't get what you are trying to say. Some girl didn't make it in under the old points system. You made it in with far better stats. I don't get your point.</p>
<p>FWIW, Gratz was offered a waitlist spot, a fact she conveniently fails to mention when she describes how not going to Michigan ruined her life. She, in fact, turned it down. In other words, she was never an outright reject. </p>
<p>But more to the point--In any given year, the volume of applications can make it so that a candidate admitted one year would not be admitted the next. It's not that the Supreme Court somehow drove the quality down.</p>
<p>I just don't see how you could jump to that conclusion with only two data points knowing that there are many factors being considered in the admissions process. For example, what was her ranking; how rigorous was her curriculum; what kinda recommendations did she get from her GC, etc.</p>
<p>The whole point of Gratz's case was that she claimed she was discriminated against as U of M admitted students of lesser credentials on racial basis.</p>
<p>Based on Gratz's argument, you should conclude that the opposite is true ... the quality of the student body would be higher without AA.</p>
<p>zhonggong, from the threads that you have started, you seem to be very down on U-M. </p>
<p>If you don't like U-M, perhaps you should find a school that you can be enthusiastic about. If you go to Ann Arbor with your attitude, you are wasting your time and parents' money.</p>
<p>no, I do like Michigan. In fact, I came to this AA topic from my gov hw last night. lol. Remember one of my postive posts about cable tv. And even if when I'm skeptical about something regarding U-M, I don't ask in a belittling way like NYao--- I think you'd agree that my tone is quite objective.</p>
<p>To dsmo: You didn't follow my logic: According to the old system, I don't have "far better stats". Our GPA is the same, and I get two more points for test scores but she would have had ten more points for in-state. My logic is that the huge disparity between our two results might suggest that the standard has lowered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My logic is that the huge disparity between our two results might suggest that the standard has lowered.
[/quote]
Your logic is flawed. With only two data points, you can't logically jump to any conclusions. I hope you didn't put that in your gov hw.</p>
<p>There are plenty of data on the web (e.g., common data set). All you have to do is compare Michigan's stats 2003-2005 vs. those before 2002. Do that and come back and tell us what you find.</p>
<p>I"m a little sad that my pithy post hoc ergo propter hoc comment didn't get a courtesy quote. :-( But yeah, look that up, its why your logic is off a bit kiddo.</p>
<p>I have to agree w/ goblue81...if your argument had been based off of comparing hundreds of students now vs before...maybe your argument would have had more substance...but as of now...what you are doing is a classic me vs her argument...which like goblue says is only two data points...i mean seriously...you are obviously a smart person...you must know that drawing a conclusion like this must be backed up by hundreds if not thousands of students data for your conclusion to be viable...</p>
<p>I also gotta say that the admissions process is very complex and randomized...who knows...maybe one of the admission counselers was a former (fill in ec name here) and happens to have a soft spot for people in that activity...maybe your curriculum was more difficult...maybe you come from an area of the country that is underrepresented at uofm and she came from an are of mich that has hundreds of applicants...or maybe your just an anomaly...you know...one of those amazing "WOW...I lucked out" stories...</p>
<p>The fact is that it is impossible to know why a group of adcom's choose you over another student...there are thousands of possible reasons why...</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree that 2 samples is not enough if it was randomized. I just brought out the Gratz case to show a real life comparsion of a huge disparity in results pre and post 2003. But now I agree that the disparity itself may or may not be the result of the Supreme Court decision. </p>
<p>HOWEVER, sticking to the facts, prior to 2003, there was a pretty clear cut-off line. I am saying that had I been subject that that same cut-off line, I could barely, and perhaps not at all, have made it. Yet now that everything is in fact randomized, I even got into honors. Hence, maybe it's not that the standard has declined, but I think something really changed after 2003, and it's coz of Gratz v. Bollinger. Oh well, I guess this was a good amateur research experience on AA.</p>
<p>The standards for Honors were not addressed by the Supreme Court decision - and probably would meet their test since it's pretty much a GPA + test score decision. If you've got a 3.8 and over 1400 on your SAT, you're pretty much guaranteed a spot in Honors. If it makes you feel better, my son got into Honors before 2003 with a lower GPA than yours. So now you have a sample of three - which tells you nothing.</p>
<p>A few more points. You cannot know the points that would be assigned to your curriculum, or to Gratz'. There are points for the quality of your school, and there are also points for the courses you took. These were an important part of the Selection Index. It's impossible for someone to compare him- or herself to another candidate without knowing that detail. Curriculum still continues to be important, even though a candidate doesn't get "points" for it.</p>
<p>It is also not the case that there is a single cut off line that is applied equally to residents and nonresidents. That may have been the case when the Selection Index was first devised (which is why the 10 points would matter). But the two populations (resident and nonresident) are now managed differently, with different enrollment targets. It has been that way for some time. I do not know if that was the case in Gratz' year or not. But as it is now, residents are never going head-to-head with nonresidents for places in the class. The "line" can therefore be different for nonresidents. Depending on the year (with variations in the targets, the applicant pools, etc) the university may dip lower in one group than the other.</p>